PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11548970

Implicit memory is not immune to interference.

Abstract

Does interference, a primary source of forgetting in explicit memory, also affect implicit memory? Several early and highly influential studies have suggested that implicit memory is immune to interference. In contrast, a number of subsequent investigations have reported evidence for interference. As well, amnesic patients, whose performance relies primarily on implicit memory, often show interference effects. A review of methods, materials, and findings suggests that interference occurs on implicit tests when targets and nontargets are similar and so compete as potential responses to the memory cue. Further, there is some evidence that the degree of interference on implicit tasks is affected by the number of competing items and their strength relative to the target. Interference effects in implicit memory seem to parallel those in explicit memory, and the authors consider the implications of this conclusion for theoretical concepts of memory and the brain.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Lustig, L Hasher. 2001. Implicit memory is not immune to interference.. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.5.618

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Abrupt onsets and gaze direction cues trigger independent reflexive attentional effects.

The present study investigated whether the direction of visual signals is influenced independently by two automatic visual orienting phenomena: orienting to a gazed-at location and inhibition of return (IOR) to the location of an abrupt onset. A schematic face served as both a nonpredictive gaze direction cue and an abrupt onset cue. Results indicated that target detection was facilitated at the gazed-at location, and that it was inhibited at the abrupt onset location. Importantly, these two different reflexive attention effects were triggered by the same event and exhibited overlapping time courses. Moreover, the IOR effect did not vary as a function of the facilitatory effect of gaze. These findings strongly suggest that reflexive attention to gaze direction and reflexive inhibition to an abrupt onset are independent processes, and that gaze direction does not produce IOR at the gazed-at location.

Attention↗

Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness.

Normal people have a strikingly low ability to detect changes in a visual scene. This has been taken as evidence that the brain represents only a few objects at a time, namely those currently in the focus of attention. In the present study, subjects were asked to detect changes in the orientation of rectangular figures in a textured display across a 1600 ms gray interval. In the first experiment, change detection improved when the location of a possible change was cued during the interval. The cue remained effective during the entire interval, but after the interval, it was ineffective, suggesting that an initially large representation was overwritten by the post-change display. To control for an effect of light intensity during the interval on the decay of the representation, we compared performance with a gray or a white interval screen in a second experiment. We found no difference between these conditions. In the third experiment, attention was occasionally misdirected during the interval by first cueing the wrong figure, before cueing the correct figure. This did not compromise performance compared to a single cue, indicating that when an item is attentionally selected, the representation of yet unchosen items remains available. In the fourth experiment, the cue was shown to be effective when changes in figure size and orientation were randomly mixed. At the time the cue appeared, subjects could not know whether size or orientation would change, therefore these results suggest that the representation contains features in their 'bound' state. Together, these findings indicate that change blindness involves overwriting of a large capacity representation by the post-change display.

Attention↗